Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review 1 WA Association of Counties April 25, 2013.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review 1 WA Association of Counties April 25, 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Columbia River Treaty Review 1 WA Association of Counties April 25, 2013

2 Columbia River Treaty Review 2 1. Why review the Treaty now? 2. Washington State Interests. 3. What if we continue the Treaty? 4. What if we terminate the Treaty? 5. What if we modernizeTreaty? 6. Can the Treaty provide water supplies for WA and OR? 7. Next Steps. 8. The Sovereign Review Team Process.

3 Columbia River Treaty Review 3  While the Treaty has no specified end date, either nation can unilaterally terminate most provisions as early as September 2024 with 10 years’ advanced written notice.  The region is working to deliver a recommendation to the U.S. State Department by Fall 2013 so they are ready to act if necessary by September (Some Treaty flood risk operations expire in Other flood risk elements in the Treaty continue past 2024.)

4 Columbia River Treaty Review 4  Power generation  Salmon and resident fish  Flood control  Water supply, agriculture, municipal (including Columbia River Water Management Program)  Recreation  Navigation  Tribal cultural resources

5 Columbia River Treaty Review 5  NW ratepayers continue to pay $200 million to $300 million/yr for one tenth the benefit.  Flood risk affected by expiration of assured storage. Draft U.S. reservoirs deeper, more often.  Same level of certainty about flows.  Can negotiate additional fish flows with Canada from Treaty and nonTreaty storage.

6 Columbia River Treaty Review 6  NW ratepayers gain $200 million to $300 million/yr  Canada loses a comparable amount.  Water flows are likely to fall in the summer and winter and rise in the spring.  Flood risk may increase and U.S. reservoirs are drafted deeper, more often as a result. Request flood storage from Canada more often (called upon).  More uncertainty about flows across the border.

7 Columbia River Treaty Review 7  Current Treaty operations come close to generating maximum power values  May reduce the size of the Canadian entitlements  Change the delivery point for the Canadian entitlement from Oliver, British Columbia.

8 Columbia River Treaty Review 8  Enhanced spring flows benefit juvenile migrants but raise dissolved gas and flood risk while reducing power generation.  Enhanced summer and dry year flows benefit juvenile and adult migrants with smaller negative impacts.  More stable reservoirs would help resident fish (i.e. Lake Roosevelt)

9 Columbia River Treaty Review 9  Assured storage in Canada may reduce the depth and frequency of required drafts in the U.S.  A new agreement could reduce uncertainty about U.S. “effective use” and “called upon.”

10 Columbia River Treaty Review 10 CountyState% of Expected Annual Damages 1Pend Oreille CountyWA39.31% 2 Flathead CountyMT25.27% 3Sanders CountyMT11.97% 4Multnomah CountyOR9.83% 5Cowlitz CountyWA3.14% 6Bonner CountyID2.61% 7Clark CountyWA1.59% 8Columbia CountyOR1.36% 9Lincoln CountyMT1.14% 10Clatsop CountyOR1.09% Results from analysis of post 2024 given current operating conditions.

11 Columbia River Treaty Review 11  Tested the availability of 1.5 MAF between April and October

12 Columbia River Treaty Review 12 Conclusion: 1.5 Maf may be available in many but not all years. Estimates of Potential Additional Canadian Storage

13 Columbia River Treaty Review 13  Entitlements: Equitable sharing of power benefits  Ecosystem function: Additional Treaty purpose to include expansion of spring, summer and dry year flows for ecosystem  Flood risk: Provide the same level of flood risk  Water supply: Reasonable amount of water for spring and summer use  Climate change: An adaptable and flexible Treaty

14 Columbia River Treaty Review 14  More work for the United States  Review flood risk policy in the Columbia Basin  U.S. process to determine use of potential Canadian storage: spring vs. summer, in-stream vs. out-of- stream  Assess the savings from reducing entitlements  Consider modification of the U.S. Entity  Regional flood plain restoration strategy

15 Columbia River Treaty Review 15  Complete final analysis (Iteration 3): Testing a modernized Treaty.  Is there a regional Treaty recommendation?  Continue, terminate, or modify  Elements to be included in a new or modified treaty  Deliver regional recommendation by Fall 2013  Negotiate with Canada

16 Columbia River Treaty Review 16 Sovereign Review Team (and Technical Team):  States: WA, OR, ID, MT  NW Tribes: 5 representatives (USRT, CRITFC, UCUT, Cowlitz, CSKT)  Federal Agencies: NMFS, USFWS, BOR, USACE, BPA, BLM, EPA, USFS, USGS, BIA, NPS NW Stakeholders:  Additional Outreach  Regional workshops, open houses  Joint Sovereign Policy Group/Stakeholder meetings  Technical consultation with regional experts among stakeholders

17 Columbia River Treaty Review 17 Tom Karier WA Member of NW Power and Conservation Council (509)

18 Columbia River Treaty Review 18 Current Conditions/Treaty Continues Outflows from Arrow are still limited by Treaty power and flood control requirements. The limited number of Called Upon years had less impact than the power requirements. Treaty Terminates Outflows are relatively constant across the year. Flows are a result of an optimal power operation for Canada, not the Treaty. Under Treaty Continues alternatives, the bump in outflows from Arrow in the Aug/Sept/Oct period are a result of proportional draft requirements.

Download ppt "Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review 1 WA Association of Counties April 25, 2013."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google